The data studied consisted of conveniencesamples of preadmission information and the results of the admission processes of three technically oriented healthcare degree programmes (Orthotics and Prosthetics, Dental Technology and Optometry) in Finland during the years 1977-1986 and 2003. The number of the subjects tested and interviewed in the first samples was 191, 615 and 606, and in the second 67, 64 and 89, respectively.

The questions of the six studies were: I. How were different kinds of preadmission data related to each other? II. Which were the major determinants of the admission decisions? III. Did the graduated students and those who dropped out differ from each other? IV. Was it possible to predict how well students would perform in the programmes? V. How was the student selection executed in the year 2003? VI. Should clinical vs. statistical prediction or both be used? (Some remarks are presented on Meehl´s argument: "Always, we might as well face it, the shadow of the statistician hovers in the background; always the actuary will have the final word.")

The main results of the study were as follows: Ability tests, dexterity tests and judgements of personality traits (communication skills, initiative, stress tolerance and motivation) provided unique, non-redundant information about the applicants. Available demographic variables did not bias the judgements of personality traits. In all three programme settings, four-factor solutions (personality, reasoning, gender-technical and age-vocational with factor scores) could be extracted by the Maximum Likelihood method with graphical Varimax rotation. The personality factor dominated the final aptitude judgements and very strongly affected the selection decisions. There were no clear differences between graduated students and those who had dropped out in regard to the four factors. In addition, the factor scores did not predict how well the students performed in the programmes. Meehl's argument on the uncertainty of clinical prediction was supported by the results, which on the other hand did not provide any relevant data for rules on statistical prediction. No clear arguments for or against the aptitude-based student selection was presented. However, the structure of the aptitude measures and their impact on the admission process are now better known.

The concept of 'personal aptitude' is not necessarily included in the values and preferences of those in charge of organizing the schooling. Thus, obviously the most well-founded and cost-effective way to execute student selection is to rely on e.g. the grade point averages of the matriculation examination and/or written entrance exams. This procedure, according to the present study, would result in a student group which has a quite different makeup (60%) from the group selected on the basis of aptitude tests.
For the recruiting organizations, instead, 'personal aptitude' may be a matter of great importance. The employers, of course, decide on personnel selection. The psychologists, if consulted, are responsible for the proper use of psychological measures.